Madras High Court quashes Goondas Act detention of private schools body chief

The Madras High Court on Monday quashed the preventive detention of B.T. Arasakumar, 59, president of an unregistered private schools association, who was held under the Goondas Act over allegations of collecting more than ₹100 crore from school managements.

A Division Bench of Justices N. Sathish Kumar and K. Rajasekar set aside the order passed by the Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police on July 11, 2026. The court found that there had been a delay in dealing with a representation the detainee submitted on July 23 seeking revocation of the detention.

The Bench accepted the argument of senior counsel P. Wilson that a representation made by a person whose personal liberty has been curtailed must be considered without delay. The judges allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by Arasakumar's wife.

The petitioner had challenged the detention on a second ground as well — that none of the alleged acts attributed to her husband had caused a threat to public order, which is the precondition for invoking the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1982.

The case traces back to a complaint filed on June 23 by C. Elangovan, secretary of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Federation, with the Commissioner of Police. The complainant alleged that Arasakumar had collected large sums by running an unregistered body called the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association.

According to the complaint, the money was gathered from private school managements on the promise of services such as obtaining approvals for upgrading schools, securing permanent recognition and getting building plan approvals, by leveraging proximity to the then ruling dispensation. He was also accused of threatening school managements with serious consequences if they disclosed the transactions.

Following the complaint, police registered a First Information Report, arrested Arasakumar and subjected him to custodial interrogation before invoking the Goondas Act.

In her petition, his wife contended that he had long been trying to register the association but could not do so because another body already used the same name. She described the complaint as the product of a civil dispute between office-bearers of different associations representing private schools in the State, arguing that it had no bearing on the maintenance of public order.

The petitioner also submitted that her husband, aged about 59, had been cooperating with the investigation and was suffering from severe neck and knee pain, diabetes and hypertension, and had already spent a considerable period in custody.